Contractual Employees Cannot Be Replaced by Another Contractual Set, But Only If Still Employed: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-08-07

Rajasthan High Court: Contractual Employees Cannot Be Replaced by New Contractual Hires, But Protection Is Conditional

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, has reinforced the principle that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another. However, in a crucial clarification, the court ruled that this protection extends only to those employees who are currently in service at the time of the judgment.

The decision was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur while disposing of a batch of writ petitions, with Zilson Garasia Vs. State of Rajasthan being one of the connected matters. The petitioners, a large group of Vocational Trainers, sought to prevent their replacement by a new set of contractual trainers and demanded timely payment of their salaries.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioners were engaged as Vocational Trainers on a contractual basis under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, a school education program run by the state. They approached the High Court with the apprehension that their services were on the verge of being terminated and replaced by another group of contractual workers, following a government order dated May 20, 2019. The petitioners argued for the security of their tenure, asserting that they were duly qualified, legally selected, and had been serving for a significant period.

Arguments in Court

The counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Saumya Choudhary, Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, and Mr. Sanjay Mathur, contended that the issue was no longer res integra (an undecided legal question). They argued that the matter had been conclusively settled by a coordinate bench of the High Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10843/2019: Seema Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors . They prayed for similar relief to be extended to the current petitioners.

Representing the respondents, Mr. Himmat Singh and Mr. P.R. Singh Jodha did not dispute the applicability of the Seema Gupta precedent. However, Mr. Jodha introduced a critical condition, submitting that the benefit of the previous judgment should only be granted to petitioners who were still in service on the date of the order. He argued that those whose contracts had already been discontinued prior to this date should not be eligible for the relief.

The Precedent: Seema Gupta's Case

The court heavily relied on the directions laid down in the Seema Gupta judgment. The pivotal excerpt from that order, which was quoted in the present judgment, stated:

“...if the petitioners are having proper qualification and are eligible to be appointed as Vocational Trainers and were duly selected by the respondents strictly in accordance with law on contractual basis, then their services shall not be replaced by another set of contractual Vocational Trainers... The protection to the petitioners shall be strictly as per their qualification and eligibility and appointment based on legal selection process for the contractual post of Vocational Trainers.”

The Seema Gupta order also addressed the issue of unpaid salaries, directing the respondents to clear the dues "as expeditiously as possible."

Court's Final Verdict and Its Implications

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur found the submission made by the respondents' counsel to be "reasonable." While upholding the principle from the Seema Gupta case, the court incorporated the condition proposed by the respondents.

In its final order dated July 22, 2025, the court directed the respondents to adhere to the directions in Seema Gupta (supra) , but with a significant rider:

"...the petitions are disposed of and the respondents are directed to follow the directions given in case of Seema Gupta(supra), if the petitioners are still continuing with them. "

This judgment provides a conditional victory for the contractual trainers. While it protects currently serving employees from arbitrary replacement by other ad-hoc appointees, it closes the door for relief to those whose services had already been terminated. The ruling underscores the precarious nature of contractual government employment and highlights that legal protection against replacement is contingent on continuous service.